Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 111 of 1968, decided on 13th May 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 119‑R of 1968).
---Sch.‑Question whether after P. T. D. (permanent transfer deed) issued, Settlement authorities competent to demarcate property transferred in such manner as to alter transfer deed itself‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Mian Muhammad Din v. Sh. Muhammad Ishaq Gaba P L D 1965 Lah. 507 and Syed Ali Mozzam v. M. A. Effandl and others P L D 1965 Lah. 193 ref.
Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Shaukat Ali Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Attorney for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing : 13th May 1968.
‑This petition raises an important question of law of some general importance, namely, as to whether after a permanent transfer deed had been issued, the Settlement authorities had any power to demarcate the property transferred in such a manner as to alter the transfer deed itself.
The High Court has held that they can do so on the authority of an earlier decision of its own Court in Mian Muhammad Din v. Sh. Muhammad Ishaq Gaba (P L D 1965 Lah. 507). But the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition points out that in another case, namely, Syed Ali Mozzam v. M. A. Effandi and others (P L D 1965 Lah. 193), the same High Court has taken a different view on the basis of the language of rule 4 of the Permanent Transfer Rules (page 319 of the Settlement Manual).
Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contends that after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued the title to the property passes to the transferee and the Settle ment Authorities have no further jurisdiction in the 'matter, as the above mentioned rule itself contemplates that any further disputes relating to the said property are to be decided according to the "normal law." This contention does appear to find some support from the language of the said rule.
We are of the opinion therefore, that this question‑on‑which there is some conflict of opinion in the High Court itself, needs to be decided authoritatively. Leave is accordingly granted to examine this question of jurisdiction. Security‑Rs. 1,000. The stay order relating to structural alterations already granted will continue in operation during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, but the preparation of the Paper Book will be expedited as far as practicable. Liberty is also given to either side to apply for early date of hearing after the expiry of the vacations of this Court.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer